User talk:Vbsouthern

Welcome!

Hello, Vbsouthern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

I've had to remove your article The Teaching of the rapture, which I have done by making it redirect to the existing article Rapture. This is because the article you wrote is not an encyclopedia article, but is a lecture. All Wikipedia articles must take the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (which you should read), which means that all opinions must be decribed without favouring any of them.

You should also note that it is not proper to claim authorship of articles. Once you have contributed one, anyone on Wikipedia is free to edit it. You should not therefore attach your name to any particular version.

I hope this explains about how we do things here. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions. DJ Clayworth 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vern

I got your email regarding your article about the Rapture. Hopefully the above explains everything you need to know. Leave a message by editing my talk page if you need any more help. DJ Clayworth 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also got your second email. If you look at the history of Rapture you will find that only thing I changed there was the link to The Teaching of the rapture, which was not longer needed after it was a redirect. DJ Clayworth 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vern_B_Southern.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vern_B_Southern.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Further to the above, I've deleted the essay you wrote at User:The Teaching of the rapture. This was done for two reasons:

You had created the essay using a second account named to draw attention to that essay. There is nothing wrong with using multiple accounts, but they must used in a manner permitted by Wikipedia policy (see this policy page) - so not for any kind of advocacy or the propagation of personal views. ~~In fact I suspect you may have intended to submit your essay as an article but been confused about how to do this, thus it ended up where it did. This brings me to the second point...~~
Wikipedia is not a private web host and every subject covered here must be done so in a neutral, verifiable and encyclopedic way. This means that we don't accept personal essays, no matter what the subject and no matter how well written. If you wish to contribute on the subject of the Rapture, you can do that at the linked article. However you'll need to provide reliable sources for any content you add and be prepared to justify it to other editors on the article talk page if it's challenged.

Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It seems that this isn't the first time you've posted your essay (apparently you've also done it at Template:Christianity-stub). Therefore I've struck a section of my post above and am no longer quite so prepared to assume that you're simply making newbie mistakes. Your activity now looks more like attempts to evade Wikipedia's policy-based content restrictions. With that in mind, I'm adding a warning to my earlier post: please don't repost your essay here in any form, or link to it. If you continue as you have been been, your account may be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia at all. EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: I've also blocked User:The Teaching of the rapture indefinitely as it was being used to circumvent policy. Please be careful to stick to one account in future. EyeSerene^talk 09:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as The Teaching of the rapture, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

As was noted above, the text is not suitable as an article for any number of reasons (personal essay, lack of reliable sources, non-encyclopedic topic, duplication of a topic handled elsewhere). In spite of the guidance above, you attempted to recreate the article (diff). I have reverted your change and restored that title as a redirect to the existing article on the Rapture. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Teaching of the rapture with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Topher385 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Opposition to the Rapture Theory"[edit]

A page you created, Opposition to the Rapture Theory, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Topher385 (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not create your personal essay on Wikipedia—anywhere on Wikipedia. Clearly you have a copy of the text, so we don't need to provide you a copy.

There are many users on Wikipedia who are willing to have a rational discussion with you on why Wikipedia policies do not permit your essay to be created as an article and why it should not be placed in your user space. You're welcome to discuss the matter with them or to make constructive edits on some other topic.

However, your persistent creation of the essay has become disruptive, which has led to your account being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Okay, that's enough. Since being told at ANI not to recreate your article you've twice done so at The Teaching of the rapture. When those were removed you ignored additional warnings and created it again at Opposition to the Rapture Theory. You're well into disruptive territory so I'm removing your ability to edit Wikipedia. This time it's temporary, just for 48 hours, but please take this as your last chance. Further problematic editing when this block expires will lead to your editing privileges being permanently removed.

If you think I've been unfair you can request that another admin reviews your block by using the {{unblock}} template (instructions at that link). You are still able to edit this talk page, but no others, for the duration of your block. EyeSerene^talk 14:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to edit here[edit]

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles applies big time here. If you want to know why any admin would have removed the essay you posted:

Truth is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research (this includes exegesis). We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology or publish sermons.
New information should always cite a reliable source. When adding this information to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). Interpretation of a reliable source is not a reliable source.
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Simply put, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository of sermons. It's not unfair, because we don't allow Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, or anyone else to post similar essays in article space. You may wish to examine this unofficial essay on how the Gospel and Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policies actually cooperate. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that there may be some copyright issues involved as well (see the ANI thread linked above) EyeSerene^talk 16:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations? That's basically stealing. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, it doesn't occur to a lot of people that using someone else's words without attribution is a blatant violation of Exodus 20:15. --NellieBly (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't stealing (look at any introductory law text). As copyvios don't remove the original copy, they aren't theft (and thus stealing). This is why we have to have specific laws against copyright violation, rather than simply using the ancient edicts against theft. Nor is copying DVDs, even for profit, piracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own is a violation of both "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not bear false witness". Ironic that the guy is supposedly trying to push a Christian teaching. He needs to get his own act together before lecturing others. Either that, or he's just a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's up Bugs? Still smarting over your block at Commons? What would "thou shalt not bear false witness" mean for copyright I wonder? Maybe someone who claimed that all their uploads were now copyvios, just to spite the project? I wonder what sort of silly rabbit would threaten that? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does it, I'm heading over to WP:WQA, Andy. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I was right, and I took a bullet for my team. It didn't smart, it felt good. :) "False witness" in this case would mean proclaiming something that you know not to be true. As Xanderlip did, and got away with it, but let's not give Mr. Velocirapture here any ideas. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]